It wasn't a vote about the EU ...

The Prime Minister appeared before the parliamentary Liaison Committee today and said:

It's important that we understand the wider meaning of the referendum result and respond accordingly. It wasn't just a vote to leave the EU, but to change the way the country works and the people for whom it works forever.

Well that was a discovery. I seem to remember the question being about whether we wanted to stay in the EU or not, not about whether we wanted to change the whole country.

But, if the vote was about changing the way the country works, then are we going to be allowed to hear what is planned? How might the country change? Who are these people for whom it will work in future? How will this be achieved?

Oh no, of course. This is not open government. It is Tudor-style autocracy. Sajid Javid is already proposing the equivalent of the Oath of Supremacy (that which brought down Thomas More).

She dodged the question as to whether Parliament would have a vote on the final deal, refusing to give a yes/no answer but waffling about the 'need to deliver the will of the British people to leave the EU'. Her one line job description which she is determined to deliver whatever it costs. Not to do so would be 'failure'.

She is sounding just like a Spitting Image Thatcher already, railing at all around her for not delivering her wishes.

Bringing people together

Sarah Olney, the newly-elected MP for Richmond Park put it well in her maiden speech:

'It is my belief that Parliament can be a positive force in bringing together the two sides of the Brexit debate.

'If the arguments can be aired openly, questions answered thoughtfully and votes taken on all the significant points of difference, then each British citizen will see that their point of view is being represented, whichever way they voted in June.'

Now that would be a radical move for this government which refuses to engage in any detail, which 'does not recognise' inconvenient truths and which has done nothing to heal the divisions between those who voted to Leave and those who voted to Remain. We are simply told to 'listen to the voice of the British people' and 'get over it, you lost!'

Sarah ended her speech:

'Such benefits [of collaboration with our nearest neighbours in trade, education, environment, security and well-being] should not be carelessly thrown aside without a careful, sober and detailed examination of what the consequences will be.'

Hear, hear.

The UK's Christmas letter

Well, it is that time of year again when we look back at the last twelve months. And what a year it has been for the family.

This time last year we were celebrating (?) the election of the first majority Tory government for eighteen years (unlike the sham version we had been living with for five years). Then it all went wrong. 'Dave' our Prime Minister announced that we could vote on whether we stayed in the EU.

After a campaign of half truths, what ifs, downright lies and dog-whistle politics which offered an a la carte menu of things like:

• Making Britain 'Great' again 
• 'Taking back control' - whatever that meant
• A halt to migration - which the Tories had promised and yet had failed to deliver
• An end to EU regulations - which had so improved our environment, product standards, workers' rights ...
• Economic nirvana

and

• Against the advice of every respected organisation, think tank or economic adviser in the country
• But not against the advice of some scurrilous, ill-informed, outwardly racist 'reporting' in the chip-wrapper media
• Supported by social media which reduced everything to the shortest of short sound bites

The forces of selfishness, racism, nostalgia and dislike of 'them' (whoever 'they' actually were) rallied to the call and, completely missing the point about who had caused the misery that had followed the recession, the people surprised themselves by voting by a narrow margin to leave the EU.

The main Brexiteers were surprised too, but not as surprised as the general public when they discovered that there was not even a dodgy dossier. There was no plan at all. None.

The Great British public had voted for a principle: to leave the club. They had shown what they did not like - the EU, metropolitan elites and Westminster - but had not the faintest idea what they did like, nor how their decision was going to be made to work.

The country was irrevocably divided: triumphant Brexiteers 'You lost, get over it' and depressed and moaning Remainers. Families were divided in the same way as they had been during the C17 Civil War. No, we did not want to get over it.

'Dave' resigned and, after an unseemly week of back-stabbing, control freak Theresa May emerged as our leader. 'Brexit means Brexit', she said: the nearest we had come to a definition of what we had been voting about. With an excellent opening speech, on a par with that of Maggie Thatcher who went on to do precisely the opposite of what she had promised.

Theresa swept into No 10. Here, she appointed the only three Brexiteers with a modicum of credibility left (well, two of them to be truthful, plus the court jester) as Ministers and told them to deliver.

We replaced the hated metropolitan elites and Westminster with ... metropolitan elites (although fewer Etonians) and Westminster. Was it worth the effort? Were the lunatics now in charge of the asylum? Would it appease the masses?

It was now up to the government to tell us what it was we had voted for. Where were to be the priorities: economic survival or simply stopping migration?

The three blind mice argued among themselves and, as we reach the closing of the year, six months after the vote we are still no clearer.

One day we needed to be in the Single Market; then we were told that we didn't. Then we were told that we might pay to access the Single Market, then we were told that we won't. Arrogant posturing - 'They need us more than we need them' - was followed by jousting about importing prosecco.

Messages coming out of the EU showed that they were spelling things out  v e r y  s l o w l y  but we seemed incapable of hearing them.

Hard and Soft Brexits gave way to a red, white and blue one (yet another of TM's wonderful meaningless and gnomic platitudes) and even a transitional one

EU citizens living in the UK have no idea of their likely future. Nissan has received special treatment (too secret for those of us who will pay for it to know about). The financial services, fisheries and other industries are queuing up to receive similar 'consideration'.

Cliff edges were mentioned. The Chancellor ditched many of the targets on which the Tories were elected 'in the light of Brexit' while admitting that the transition out of the EU could cost the UK economy many billions of pounds. Perhaps even £350m a week. Surveys showed that people 'would not be prepared to be worse off when we leave the EU'. Well I have news for them.

On a positive note, Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested that the UK could go 'a very long way' to rolling back high EU standards. (Yes, and we could scrap the minimum wage and reintroduce workhouses).

The PM has been on trade missions - which were reported by No 10 to have been 'great successes' of course - to China, India and Saudi Arabia. Presumably these are to become some of our main trading partners (never mind the appalling human rights records of two of those countries. Dictators like to stick together).

Cards have been kept close to chests. We are three months from triggering Article 50 (if it has not effectively been triggered already) and the general public has still not been told anything about what is planned. It has not even been told what it really voted for.

We have had to survive on leaks to know what is going on. 'They have no plan' said one. 'Have cake and eat it?' said another. The need for 30,000 more civil servants was mentioned.

Knuckles have been rapped (publicly) whenever Ministers have gone off script ('All Hail Great Leader who shall hold all decisions unto Herself').

At the last minute, the government caved in and promised to publish a summary of its plans to parliament before triggering Article 50. Our craven MPs, no doubt stamped on by the whips, swapped this for an agreement in principle to the timetable of the end of March.

Where were their convictions? Have they not read A Man for All Seasons? 'I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties ... they lead their country by a short route to chaos.'

So, after more than seven months of their work, we will have less than seven weeks to think about their plan. Will it be more than a fag packet? Will MPs actually get to debate and vote on it? Will they then have the courage of their convictions? Will 'no' be a possible answer? Will pigs fly?

We have all became experts on democracy. Why had we not voted for our Prime Minister? Was a 52% vote on a constitutional matter acceptable? What was the role of parliament in a so-called representative democracy? What would the role of the Lords be? Will Scotland break away? Will Northern Ireland?

As if this was not enough, there has been a large elephant in the room of public discourse: the complete lack of action by the government to unite the very divided country. Apart from platitudes from the rostrum and meaningless repetition of phrases like 'just about managing' (a policy that was simply not carried through into the Autumn financial statement), the government has done nothing - not a thing - to bring the Remainers into the camp.

'Say nothing or they may discover the truth' has been the watchword of the day. 'Don't tell him your name, Pike.'

Everything has been negative. Any attempt to ask questions has been slapped down. Any attempt to express an alternative view has been rubbished. Brexiteer MPs have talked of charges of treason for daring to express a view contrary to theirs.

Where are the campaigns trying to woo us to their view of the future? What is that future going to look like? If we are grown up enough to vote in a referendum then are we not grown up enough to know how you translate the meaning of that result, what that future might actually look like? Remember, there was not even a dodgy dossier, no plan. Are we heading for the Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Ukraine, Turkish ... model (or none of the above)? Why?

Sadly, unlike one Christmas, there has been no new messenger: no statesman (or woman) willing and able to stand up and say:

'This is all nonsense. The referendum was built on lies and deceptions. You cannot take a serious and long-lasting decision in that way. It would be immoral and stupid. Look what happened when we did that with Iraq. We have to have a plan for 'victory'.

'It is clear that there is dissatisfaction and inequalities in the country. Let's start by defining what those are. Only when we have worked out what is wrong and what our options might be should we start looking for solutions. Those solutions may involve leaving a trading block. They may not. Let's work out the costs and benefits in a sober and rational way before we do anything we might later regret.'

No, that sounds far too sensible.

Should we just get over it? No, for I cannot keep silent. A Man for All Seasons again: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing according to your conscience... and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

Or Kipling's Statesman:
I could not dig; I dared not rob: 
Therefore I lied to please the mob. 
Now all my lies are proved untrue 
And I must face the men I slew. 
What tale shall serve me here among 
Mine angry and defrauded young? 

It has been a fun year, don't you think. Next year looks as if it is going to be even better.

Happy Christmas and a Prosperous (?) New Year.

Here is your Christmas card, with no Jews, Arabs or migrants. It is better than a robin in the snow, don't you think?

Ostrich anyone?

Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's top diplomat in Brussels has privately told the government that a Brexit deal could take ten years.

The initial response of No 10 was We do not recognise this advice. This was later amended to We do not recognise this timetable.

What a stupid and arrogant response but it was everything one has come to expect from the ostrich-like No 10 press machine.

I suppose that we should be grateful that they said anything. They could have had him arraigned for treason carted off the Tower and delivered to the axeman. Or he could have simply been sacked. No, that would be far too kind.

In another part of the jungle, the non-appearance of Nicky Morgan on Have I Got News For You following her perfectly justified (if rather unwise) remarks about the PM's leather trousers shows that the No 10 terror machine has nothing to learn from Putin's Russia.

As usual, her absence from the programme gave much more oxygen to the issue than it would ever have had if she had been there.

Let's put our hands over our ears and pretend that anything which does not accord with our view of the world does not need 'to be recognised'.

Come to think of it, we could do the same about the £350m a week that we are meant to be saving when we leave the EU, and the problems of the negotiations, and ...

Making Britain 'Great' again?

Someone called Frank Nijhoff (*) put, in prose, what Gray put in verse: an elegy for a once great nation:

The sad thing is that if you are really convinced that you are such a great country, you wouldn't close yourself; you wouldn't shut yourselves in and others out. 
It demonstrates a nation in deep internal conflict with itself, uncertain about its own identity, about its future and its place in the world, and trying to convince itself, somewhat pathetically, that it is greater than it really is (no matter what past achievements it holds). 
And it shows a disrespect for your fellow Europeans: implicit is the idea that all the other nations, all the other 450,000,000 people in the EU, in some sense are less special, are less clever, are less queued up, are less proud of their own heritage and culture. 
Just sad.

* I have no evidence that this is the Professor of Mathematics at Leeds but I hope it is: a man of science and rational thought.

At the core of power

We have a new leader who, after four months in the job is showing all the signs of being a complete control freak.

Faced with an undeliverable and ill-defined agenda - Brexit - with no public mandate, no manifesto worthy of the name and with a pack of snapping turtles around her ankles, she seems to be holding all decisions to herself.

The early days do not look good. There has been a significant and worrying shift to the right exemplified by the rhetoric about migrants, the have-nots, health tourists. She has done nothing to discourage this beyond meaningless platitudes about 'listening' (and where have we heard that before).

People have dared to ask 'Please, Miss, can we know what you are actually planning to do about this Brexit thing? Are we to be in the Single Market or not? Are we to allow free movement of people or not? What will be the economic consequences? How are we going to pay off the National Debt (which is already horrendously large) if the benefits of Brexit (if any) are not going to kick in for five years (or more)? Are we about to jump off a very high cliff with a millstone around our necks or not? 

These questions are not allowed. They are certainly not answered.

No politician likes being questioned or challenged but how they react varies. If Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian is to be believed then only the left plays by the rules. Remember Blair's attempt to create a 'big tent' using people from across the 'political divide' to head up task forces. This would be unthinkable for a right-wing government like ours.

The right simply stonewalls: 'You lost get over it' or 'There will be no running commentary'. How dare we ask what on earth is going on?

As we all know, the primary purpose of the referendum was to heal a deep-seated rift in the Tory party. We, the voters, were allowed to pass an opinion which surprised us all and led to the fall of one Prime Minister, to be replaced by another from, yes, the same 'One Party'.

The vision of the Tory Party has always been clear: that they have a divine right to rule. The role of the Party has always been more important than the needs of the country (although they say they have our best interests at heart).

In a one party state, any disagreements between wings of the Party are kept behind closed doors and the public can know about Policy once the Party has resolved matters. It is not a matter for general debate or discussion.

Anyone who objects to Policy is vilified, dismissed as 'lightweights', and/or insulted. It does not take long to find the insulting adjectives in any article in the Daily Mail.

The judges dared to express a perfectly reasonable opinion on a matter of law and were vilified by the right wing press/bullies, to the extent that Gina Miller who brought the High Court action was unable to go out of her house for fear of being attacked.

Whenever people like Blair or Clegg talk about Brexit, Leavers react with sentences starting 'Why listen to the man who ...': substitute 'illegal war' or 'student fees' as appropriate. Why should these two men, both experienced politicians, be denied their right to think, or to have and express an opinion just because of their past decisions? In any sane world, they would be listened to as actually knowing what they are talking about. Let he who is without sin ...

The key problem is that they are not 'of the Party'. Trump is absolved of any past errors as he is 'one of us' (right wing) with whom 'we need to get along', just as Boris is tolerated for his misdemeanours.

The right does not grace Corbyn with insults for fear of drawing attention to a man they regard as beneath contempt.

The right answers any probing question with lines like 'We are not for turning', 'This is splendid for the UK' etc ... simple mind-numbing dull press releases re-iterating the Leader's thoughts are so anodyne to ensure they do not get the issuing Department (Truss, Grayling ...) into trouble.

The right does not seek to bring people together. It tells people to 'unite' with the unspoken addition 'behind the Party'. Believe in the Party. Trust the Party. Pure Orwell or Huxley.

At the heart of the web is a control freak: at the core of power.

We do not have to look very far for a model of what it could all look like. Just read Stephen McDonnell's article on the BBC website about the recent Plenum in China and ask yourself if it does not all sound horribly familiar.

A single Party which decides everything behind closed doors. A Party with a leader 'at the core' of its work, beginning to build a cult of personality. A Party which controls the media and brooks no opposition, no questions.

No wonder we are so keen to do business with China.

Developing trade agreements

Theresa May discovered what fun it is negotiating trade agreements on her visit to India last week.

Having arrived with a package of 'investments' in her briefcase which she could 'announce' she found herself up against fairly stoney-faced Indian politicians pointing out the difficulties of obtaining visas for the UK, especially amongst students.

The Times of India called her Muddled May and pointed out that A UK-India free trade agreement would be a non-starter as long as the visa issue isn't sorted.

This was echoed by one of the participants, Keith Burnett Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield who said he was 'truly ashamed' by the trip with entries from Indian students significantly down because of the desire to kick them out the moment they had graduated.

No 10 announced, of course, that the mission had been 'a stunning success' and went on to say that 'successful high-value travellers, of the kind most countries are keen to welcome, would have the extra help and advice for their families and themselves.'

What is it that TM does not understand? The revolt by the people of the UK in the referendum is remarkably similar to the rebellion in the USA: against the rich and powerful. Yet here she and her people are encouraging 'successful high-value travellers'. Let's forget the ordinary people, we only want the monied elites. No, no and no!

She was going to govern for all people, remember.

The 'host of commercial deals' that were due to be signed involved investments of various forms, several of them investments into India, witness:

• a £1.2 million joint venture initiative between the Pandrol Group UK and Rahee Group in India – to set up a state-of the-art manufacturing plant in India, supplying metro and Indian rail projects across the country
• a £15 million high-end imaging and diagnostic centre in Chennai to be developed by Lyca Health UK
• a £350 million investment from British start-up, Kloudpad, into high-tech electronics manufacturing in Kochi. The company will create a manufacturing facility and a highly advanced research and development facility allowing them to expand their global reach

These, we are told 'are expected to create 1,370 jobs in the UK, providing a real boost to our workforce and financial security for hundreds of families across the country'.

Will someone explain how investment in India will 'provide a real boost to our workforce in, say, Sunderland who cannot get jobs?

Toddler tantrums Part 1

The government lost the (first round?) Of the legal challenge to ensure that parliament is involved in discussions about Brexit preventing Theresa May claiming some divine right to go ahead and trigger Article 50 by executive decree.

The Brexiteers threw a hissy fit. The Mail (Express, Sun and, to a certain extent, the Telegraph) slammed the judges as 'undemocratic' Euro-philes and went on to dig into their private lives as though this was in any way relevant.

The 'Lord Chancellor' Liz Truss excelled herself by producing a pathetically weak tweet - is this how Ministers put out authoritative statements nowadays? - too late, limply reminding us that judges are independent and objective. She probably did not want to upset her leader by showing too much robust support for an independent judiciary that her oath of office required her to uphold. 

One lawyer-blogger called for her resignation.

No Minister has had the guts to comment on the vile nature of the article. Challenged on her way to India, Theresa May was content merely to comment on the need for a free press. Free to spread lies then.

TM went on to say that the government would be challenging the ruling and was confident of winning. She would not be derailed from her March timetable.

The question no one seems to be asking is why she is challenging the case. What is wrong with accepting the finding and re-adjusting the timetable? Why risk the inevitable egg on her face if she loses the appeal?

I guess she has already drafted the letter to the EU and was itching to send it off in order to get the Hard Brexiteers off her back and to draw the Ukip members back into the Tory fold before that party found a new leader and perhaps even policies.

'You may have gathered that the British people have (following a campaign of lies and deceit, very stupidly) decided that they would be better off outside the club and so please take this as notice that we will be leaving in two years time, as per Article 50 ... so long, and now we can have our fish back, TMx'

If the courts think she ought to go through parliament then why not do so? What is the risk? It would look good and there would be a perfectly credible response to the rabid hordes. 

'Sorry chums, we wanted parliament to be sovereign and so we had better let them start as they mean to go on.The timetable will have to be put back but we are committed to getting there so let's make sure that poisonous Clegg and his merry men do not back us into the corner they are preparing for us.

'If anyone stands in our way, or massacres our Bill with amendments, then we will simply call a general election and ask the British people to give us some MPs who will do as they are told.'

Putting back the March date might even work to her advantage. A six month delay would get the German and French elections out of the way and still leave her a clear two years before the 2020 election. If she submitted the Article 50 letter at the end of 2017, she would be going to the country in 202o saying 'I have delivered the Brexit you wanted. What a Good Girl am I. Now can I have another five-year term (only this time you will actually get a chance to vote for me)?' 

What is wrong with that? 

Surely she cannot think she might find herself in 2020 with the UK out of Europe, no credible trade agreements in place, a monumental recession and government debt spiralling even further out of control ... No, surely not. 

It all smacks of the control-freak thwarted: a toddler tantrum by someone who likes to have her own way: the dictator who came against the rules.

Enough rope to hang themselves?

The High Court has ruled that Parliament must have the last word on matters which affect domestic laws and the rights of citizens. Submitting Article 50 does both of those things and therefore Parliament must be involved.

The government will naturally appeal to the Supreme Court and we will see if they win in the next round, while licking our lips at the irony of the EU Court possibly becoming involved in the issue.

The judgement has produced a horrific outpouring of ill-informed barrack-room lawyers claiming the judges are unelected (!?), over-riding the will of the people ... Oh the irony that the Brexiteers were so keen to live the EU that Parliament could 'take back sovereignty'.

Then there was the sexist and racist stuff about one of the judges being gay and the person who funded the case being born in Guyana. Shock horror! Is this the best 'reasoned argument' they can find?

Nick Clegg continues to do well as an opponent of Brexit, playing a long and politically sensible game. You can tell that his opponents are worried by their vituperative comments about him and the words they try to put into his mouth.

He was his typically clear self using three familiar phrases about the referendum:

• It showed a direction but not a destination. We have no idea where we are actually going (although someone no doubt has a plan that they don;t want to share with anyone else) 
• It showed what people do not like but it did not show what they do like
• It was based on mendacious lies

His view of the way forward is clear:

• Parliament must be sovereign. It is hard to disagree with this, despite the attempts of Theresa May and her cohorts to act like Tudor monarchs
• Parliament should be told what the government is seeking to achieve. Are we going to be in the single market or outside it? Are we going to allow free movement of people or not (almost certainly not)? How much will this all cost us?
• Parliament should have a vote on this before Article 50 is submitted
• Parliament should then be permitted to review what is actually on offer at the end of the negotiations and vote on whether it meets the objectives and whether it is acceptable
• If the government fails to convince Parliament then it must return to the people for their view

It is hard to argue with this as a sensible and parliamentary way of doing things, high risk though it is. If, as Nick no doubt believes, the EU will give a simple round 'No' to the proposals, then the game will be up. It gives the Three Blind Mice enough rope to hang themselves.

Risky? Probably but is is more of a plan than any we have heard so far from the government.

Another week in the madhouse

Another week has gone by with the government stonewalling every attempt to find out What Is Going On with their 'brilliant' and 'ambitious' Brexit plans.

As we all know, the referendum was called to attempt to heal, or cauterize, the split in the Tory party. Our new PM is continuing business as usual, refusing to reveal anything. This gives the illusion that she is competent and in control before we start the real hard graft of negotiation.

Her real objective is to be all things to all men, thus avoiding further splits within the Tory party. Thankfully, people like Ken Clarke are harder to silence.

In reality of course, she is completely out of her depth and surrounded by three blind mice pulling her every which way.

Bored journalists, starved of news from insiders, are trawling through the archives and finding statement after statement showing that the leading protagonists have been changing their views like weather vanes. Who was it told a Goldman Sach's audience earlier this year that leaving the EU would be an economic disaster? Oh yes, it was the former Home Secretary, now PM. So she can stand with Boris on the 'changed your position a little haven't you dear' step. Why should I believe anything you say? Integrity? Forget it.

Over the last few days the fog has occasionally lifted but then collapsed in a mess.

Nicola Sturgeon joined a meeting at No 10 to open discussions about the way forward. She came out and described the talks as deeply frustrating, declaring that there was no noticeable plan. To add embarrassment to the government's position, she then reported to the Scottish Parliament that the so-called hotline to the Brexit department had taken 36 hours to return her call. Do you think we are as casual with the Nuclear War hotline?

John McDonnell, for Labour, echoed Nicola's thoughts by saying that the government was making things up as they went along. He has noticed at last. Good.

Chancellor Philip Hammond rocked the boat by appearing to discount a hard Brexit. He received the PM's 'full support'. Poor man. He has to go back to the Treasury which is probably explaining to him just how ghastly things look. He has already dropped the Manifesto promise of reducing the deficit within this parliamentary term.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd joined the PM in saying that the aim was to get migration down to the 'tens of thousands'. Theresa May failed to achieve this as Home Secretary. She seems determined to deliver on the targets which she failed in her previous job. Perhaps someone should remind her that the target was set her by the former PM and nobody now believes anything he says.

The government was not totally successful in not revealing its negotiating hand. The big news of the week was that Nissan had received unspecified assurances from the PM which encouraged them to continue to invest in the UK.

'Incredulous', was the general reaction to the news which led to further stonewalling when Minister Greg Clarke was asked to reveal the content of a letter to the company.

Can we assume that there is now another Brexit shopping list which includes special treatment for the City of London, car manufacturers and ... ? The list will only get longer. Fishing rights are sure to be on the agenda once someone explains the issue (slowly) to George Eustace.

The preliminary decision to permit a third runway at Heathrow also caused flurries. Several cabinet ministers were on record as opposing this. The previous PM had promised no third runway, 'no is,no buts'. Ah, but that was then and this is now. I recall being promised no fourth terminal, many years ago with much the same level of assurance.

The thought of Boris lying down in front of the bulldozers was just too joyful to contemplate. The resignation of the poisonous Zac Goldsmith and the forthcoming by-election in Richmond is going to be a wonderful side-show.

Despite the government's attempts not to allow Parliament any say in Brexit matters, the Commons was allowed one vote: a Early Day Motion asking that EU citizens should have the right to remain in the UK was voted down by 293 to 250. So they can still be used as bargaining 'cards'. No doubt Liam Fox is delighted.

He will be less delighted to be reminded by a Polish MEP that he could not start negotiating a new arrangement with the EU until we had left.

There were also several good news pieces by those who should know, pointing out just how complex it would be to set up trade agreements. Somehow, it is hard to have confidence that Liam Fox could even get to first base with them.

Of course, it would be good to know whether we are aiming to have access to the Single Market in future (as promised by some Brexiteers) or not (as suggested by others).

A witty article by Damien McGuinness explained one of the big problems faced by British negotiators: the difference between a Germany No and a British No. One means 'No', the other means 'Please try and persuade me'. No wonder our European friends do not understand us. Mind you, I am not sure I do either.

The pound is now trading at a 30 year low, 15% below its value in June.Microsoft (and others) are beginning to put up their prices, recognising that this is likely to be the new reality.

To conclude, three cheerful posts from like-minds caught the eye:

• Some one called James Christie explains why the referendum question and answer were flawed and how undemocratic they are
• John van Reenan formerly of the LSE describes himself as a derided expert takes a longer and wider look at the referendum and the drivers for the result
• And finally, Polly Toynbee points out that the public are turning against Brexit and wonders when Theresa May will listen. Optimistic, perhaps, but at least she is prepared to say the unthinkable: it is not a question of what sort of Brexit. The question should be Brexit or no Brexit? The right (compassionate, economically-informed, global, responsible, peaceful, co-operative) answer is obvious  

Children or adults?

So, at long last, the government has arranged for some of the children from 'The Jungle' in Calais to be brought across to the UK to be re-united with their families. (Someone must have needed press coverage to show how 'caring and compassionate' she is).

The tabloids went mental at the suggestion that some of them might not be quite as young as they say.

• An MP suggests dental checks: dentists refuse ... 
• Gary Lineker (amongst others) shows sympathy with the refugees; The Sun calls for him to be sacked ...

... and so the story developed.

Our super-competent government is planning to introduce a visa system to decide who will, and who will not, be allowed to enter this country.

If it cannot screen 14 children, in slow time from as close as Calais, how are they successfully going to screen the other 320,000 [... and falling*] that want to come to the UK each year?

We are surely not going to use any of the £350m a week (Brexiteers' estimate) saving from being in the EU to hire more border staff. That is already committed to the NHS (Brexiteers' promise)?

* An after-thought: with the racist atmosphere being promulgated by our media, egged on by those who should know better, it is unlikely that the demand will be as high as this in future. Well, I suppose it is one way to bring down immigration.

Still 'moaning' ...

What an amazing mess this government is continuing to make of Brexit. As the clock winds down, nothing is becoming clearer and it is being dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation that some sort of parliamentary scrutiny is going to be inevitable. Its objective, it seems, is to prevent anyone derailing its view of what should happen.

Fine in principle, it is just that it has not explained what that is.

As David Davis told Parliament recently there was a clear, overwhelming and unarguable mandate for Brexit in the referendum. As one commentator pointed out, this sentence contains three lies in six words. For 'clear' let us use 'wafer thin'. For overwhelming, let us remind ourselves that about a third of the country voted to leave the EU and for 'unarguable' let us remind ourselves that the vote was 'advisory'.

There are three possible positions for Remainers to take: to accept, to squirm or to refuse to accept. The bullying cosh of 'democracy' has forced most Remainers into one of the first two groups. I am firmly in the third which people enjoy referring to as being 'in denial'.

For a Remainer to Accept the Result seems a complete cop-out. Democracy is not some magic fairy dust which has clear and unambiguous rules. It is the will of the people. Our chosen method is representative democracy. To judge each issue in isolation is naive and simplistic. Every decision has knock-on consequences which need to be balanced and we delegate this to people called MPs.

No one has written the rules down of our system of democracy. We have written constitution and so our system of governance has to be based on precedent and goodwill. (I note, in passing that the British Constitution A level has recently been deleted from the curriculum).

No one could objectively call our country a model of democracy, despite our belief that we created the system and have the mother of parliaments. A simple mention of the words 'House of Lords' and 'Proportional Representation' should suffice to show how far we are from a true 'democracy', if such a thing is actually achievable. We are hardly progressive. A natural British conservativism has prevented any meaningful change since women's suffrage.

The second option is To Squirm. It is encouraging that, at last, Parliament is beginning to demand to be involved. It will have to contend with the whips of course, and the machinations of a government which seems to think that a parliamentary rubber stamp will suffice. WS Gilbert would love the idea.

Even the Telegraph's sketch writer, Michael Deacon, seems to be questioning the government's approach, however, rightly suggesting that the government seems to think that they have a free hand to do whatever they want. An earlier piece, again very surprisingly from the Telegraph, showed that migration was an economic benefit to the country and that migrants were not actually taking jobs away from 'British people'.

For The Times, the incomparable Matthew Parris has had his Damascus moment, opining that we are facing the biggest crisis since Suez. For those who do not remember this (and Matthew was close to this as a boy), this was the moment when the UK finally showed that it was no longer capable of 'gunboat diplomacy'. The end of empire followed. Now we are about to show that we no longer understand international trade. Truly the end of any chance of 'Greatness': a horrid concept, much loved by Brexiteers.

People like Keir Starmer and Nick Clegg seem to understand the parliamentary game and are leading the charge. It is a far more astute political - note the lower case 'p' - game than some. 'OK, so you have a plan. Tell us what it is before you do anything irrevocable. Just explain to us how it is going to work and we will judge it on its merits. If Parliament approves it then think how much stronger your position will be in any negotiations.'

I like their style. It is not surprising that this sends the government into a tailspin. 'Oh dear me no. That would be to betray our negotiating position.' This response conveniently hides the fact that the three blind mice cannot agree amongst themselves, let alone other members of the cabinet. Allow the public and media to judge us on what we are seeking to achieve. Oh dear me no. There will be no running commentary.

My response is one word much-favoured by Brexiteers: 'Democracy'.

Finally, there is the Refuse to Accept or denial group. This is the purists option.This is the silent group that needs to be placated in any compromise deal. I suspect that long-time Europhile Ken Clarke is in this group.

The arguments here are that the referendum did not produce David Davis' clear, overwhelming and unarguable mandate. It was a single, advisory vote which told us almost nothing about the mix of reasons why people voted as they did. It told us what people wanted to do - leave the EU - but gave no information about why. In many ways it was a selfish, single issue vote without context.

It was a vote in the same category as 'Do we all want a free pot of Marmite every day'. There would be those who loved it and those who hated it but it would make no economic sense.

It was a question on a single issue with neither side setting out no a clear economic and social manifesto in advance It told us what we did not like but not why, nor what alternative we preferred.

Before we went to war with Iraq, we were given many 'facts' and invited to make up our minds. Many of us said 'Not in my Name' but the government of the day went ahead anyway.

The debacle was followed by the hugely expensive Chilcott review. This concluded that the decision had been based on lies and there have even been calls for Tony Blair to be prosecuted.

Let's wind the clock forward. If Brexit produces the economic effects predicted by the 'experts' then will we be looking back with another Chilcott review and wondering how we ever took the decision to leave the EU after a campaign of lies? Nick Clegg refers to the comments by the main culprits as 'mendacious'.

With each day that goes past, another lie is exposed, another 'commitment' withdrawn or 'clarified'. All we are left with is the conclusion that we should leave the EU: a conclusion whose foundations have faded away.

This week, a Tory councillor suggested that anyone in the last two groups - the Squirmers and Deniers - should be charged with treason. If that does not give you some flavour of the Tory mindset and love of freedom of speech, I don't know what does.

In the absence of any sort of plan, the government seem to be doing nothing but sit with their hands over their ears to avoid hearing the messages coming out of the EU and the leaders of the other 27 countries. It is saying that 'metropolitan elites' with their 'sneering' and 'logical arguments' should be told to shut up. And it is doing nothing to persuade people like me to join the first group.

Truly a new take on the fable of the three wise monkeys.

Enough is enough

The recent Tory Party Conference was genuinely a watershed. As Ian Hislop has said, the first few days sounded like the UKIP Conference and then we had one day of the Labour Conference in which the PM made lots of smooth-sounding platitudes about bringing people together, governing for all and making a success of Brexit.

She has become rather good at such noises ... but ruined the effect the following day by allowing Sajid Javid to announce that fracking is to go ahead in Lancashire in defiance of the wishes of the local community and in favour of big business (sorry, 'our national energy policy'). I am sure that the people of Lancashire will have enjoyed the exercise of 'democracy'.

It was possible to feel deeply insulted by the response that it was not for Parliament to double-think the will of the British people, presumably because that was reserved for the ruling clique who have interpreted the June vote to suit their own purposes. One commentator even tried to justify the government's strategy on the basis of 'polling' which makes one wonder why we bother to have elections at all.

Just as we were reeling from Liam Fox' suggestion that existing EU nationals were mere cards to be played in our negotiation with the EU we heard from our Home Secretary which was surely the nadir of the Conference. (Not forgetting that our control-freak PM's former job - record definitely doubtful - was Home Secretary and this is a policy area in which she would have a special  interest)

Amber Rudd's speech said that companies would need to record the nationality of all staff and name and shame those that were employing foreigners. This was particularly appalling as it came from a minister in a cabinet that prides itself on its micro-management of news (with the exception of statements by the three blind mice/wise monkeys who seem to be a law unto themselves and frequently contradict each other).

Her speech was the moment that I said 'I can no longer stand by. I must act.'

A clarification assured us that Rudd had not meant what she had said at all and that there was no question of naming and shaming it was just that government was going to collect the statistics so that it could work out where there were 'skill shortages'. Back-tracking under pressure, and so quickly.

As an aside, can someone explain to me how the system is going to work? Data would be submitted by firms. This will no doubt say 'this database manager job is occupied by a person born in Czechia' ...which will feed through to the Education Department who will train up a new database manager so that, in 20 years, we will have a person available who can fill that job. This is the apparent thinking behind Jeremy Hunt's delight in announcing that 1500 extra doctors are to be trained each year (and about time too).

Or will it feed through to Employment Offices who will be required to trawl through their records to find someone who claims to be a database manager so that they can be posted to the firm concerned who can then 'let go' of the Czech national?

And, if so, then how many civil servants will it take to administer such a scheme? And at what cost?

And will the number of vacancies - less the number of existing Brits who claim to be able to do the job - be passed to our Consulates so that they can 'let in' suitable people who can then apply for the jobs?

And what happens if the Brits concerned turn out to be wholly unsuitable for the jobs concerned? What of the government's productivity drive then?

Then there was the message to the LSE that the government would not permit anyone with a foreign passport to provide advice to government on matters to do with Brexit, ostensibly for fear that 'our negotiating position - (do we read 'lack of any coherent plan'?) should leak. This was so swiftly and strenuously denied as to be deeply suspicious.

I can no longer stand by at such centralist fascist bullying, such xeno-racist talk. All it requires for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing. Just as Donald Trump's vile remarks show the true character of the man - not something that can be dismissed as locker-room chat - so last week's announcements show the true character of this government.

Let me state my position clearly: this government must go, starting at the top.

In 1997 we were a nation that was at ease with itself. Not now. Not when half the country is regarded as deluded for their views. Not when the government of the day behaves like the worst sort of bully - 'you lost get over it' - aided and abetted by most of the mainstream media (owned by rich tycoons who stand to benefit most from Brexit). Not when the government of the day does nothing - not a single thing - to win us over to their vision of the future: not an explanation, not a reasoned argument, not an invitation to engage: just platitudes and 'it will be alright on the night'.

Some of us wish the UK to continue as an Open, tolerant and united country and yes, those words may be familiar but they should apply to all political parties in the great tradition of UK.Why, they are probably enshrined in the 'British Values' which the government is so keen that all schoolchildren should learn about.

Parliament managed to find time to discuss - but not vote on - the plan for Brexit this week. Of course a vote could not happen: the government might have lost it. Was this the re-capturing sovereignty for our own parliament that was promised?

I do not normally post things verbatim on this site but every now and again something appears which hits the nail on the head. What follows is a letter from someone about whom I know nothing but who clearly feels the same as many of us:

Dear Prime Minister

I was a Remain voter.

When you became Prime Minister I was cautiously hopeful because I felt you would be a voice of reason and moderation in a country where these qualities seemed to be being cast aside. Even when you appointed Messrs Fox, Davis, and Johnson to government, I felt perhaps that this was an intelligent move to give the responsibility for execution to those who had so carelessly made lavish and unfulfillable promises.

However, the Conservative Party Conference has disabused me of this hope.

Although I am now in my sixties, I have never known the country so divided as it has been since 23rd June. 

The Conference would have been an opportunity for a real leader to reach out to try to start to heal some of the wounds. Instead, you decided to use your speech to disparage the 16 million voters who felt it would be a huge mistake for this country to leave the EU.

Thanks to your speech I learn that I am, in your eyes, part of a “sneering, metropolitan elite” because I struggle to understand why a slim majority of my fellow citizens voted to go down the disastrous route of leaving the EU.

It is certainly true that I have sneered at the manifest dishonesty of senior politicians (some now in your cabinet) who misled the electorate by telling lies so crass, so grotesque, that they had to be withdrawn a day or two after the referendum.

However, I do not sneer and never have sneered at the concerns of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our society – I myself grew up in that sort of background. I believe they have very real causes for concern which have been ignored for far too long. The irony of this is that you have been a senior member of governments which, for the last six years, have been doing the ignoring, so trying to place the blame on those who voted Remain is a cynical misdirection of responsibility.

Truly, if you want to see real sneering, you have only to glance at the Daily Express or visit a Brexit website.

That apart, I am angry.

I am angry at MPs who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to make the most significant decision of a generation on the basis of these lies, and who lack the moral courage of their own convictions.

I am angry at a government which, after a narrow margin in favour of detaching from the EU (with a significantly disenfranchised electorate and where “Leave” voters were motivated by a wide range of considerations) now seeks to convert this advisory vote (for thus it was) into a mandate to lurch to the extreme right and to turn on those of foreign birth who have made their lives in this country.

I am angry at a government which, pursing a policy supposedly in the name of “taking back sovereignty”, now believes that it alone has the right to decide on the future of the country without reference to our elected parliament.

I am angry at a government which appears intent on a “hard Brexit” which will condemn us to a further decade or more of recession which will hit hardest the poorest and most needy in our society, will severely diminish our place in the world, and which may well fragment the United Kingdom itself.

I am angry at a government which fails to invest in housing, education, health, and other infrastructure and then cynically encourages the blame to be passed on to immigrants when services cannot cope.

I bow to no-one in my pride at being British, but patriotism is not the same as a narrow, xenophobic nationalism. I believe that our future lies in close co-operation with other European Democracies, rather than with regimes like China, or in gloriously futile isolationism. In truth, right now I am feeling ashamed of my country.

I do not normally spend a huge amount of time engaged with politics. I have only once written to a Prime Minister before: to Tony Blair on the eve of the Iraq War. However, it appears that you now think of me as your enemy, along with the sixteen million others who voted Remain and who are, for the most part, still deeply concerned about the direction in which our country is heading. So be it.

A few years ago, you yourself said of the Conservatives: “They call us the Nasty Party”. Well, after your party’s Conference, people are now calling you the Nazi Party. There’s a legacy to be proud of, Prime Minister! 

Yours sincerely 

Martyn Calder

The job I am used to

Have you noticed how someone who is promoted internally seems to enjoy doing the same job they had before? There is a natural comfort in knowing the topic.

It is akin to what follows the familiar line If I were in charge we would ... which usually results in a rather narrowly-focused solution largely based on the person's current job rather than one which takes other factors into account.

Our new PM is certainly following this trend with her interpretation of the referendum result as being all about migration (which she failed to control in her previous job) and squeezing the European Court of Justice (with whom she crossed swords in her last job) out of our affairs.

It is sad that the economy will need to be sent down the pan to overcome her previous failings.

Democracy in action?

With Theresa May firing the starting pistol on Brexit over the weekend, the world is coincidentally full of referenda (referendums?).

Hungary has just voted in a referendum to prevent the EU from telling it how many migrants it should take. A turnout of 50% was required but the vote only achieved 43%; however 98% of those supported the government's stance. Naturally, the Hungarian PM claimed it as a victory with a spokesman calling it 'binding politically and legally'. Hmm ...

We could learn from the Hungarians on phrasing a question. Do you want the European Union to be able to mandate the obligatory resettlement of non-Hungarian citizens into Hungary even without the approval of the National Assembly. In its English translation, the question probably requires the reading age of an intelligent eighteen year old but really only invites one answer: the one it received.

Hungary had only been asked to take 1,294 migrants: about 0.1% of its existing population and the equivalent of the UK taking about 8,000. They went to the expense of a referendum for that? The cost of the vote must have well exceeded the cost of housing the refugees.

Meanwhile, in Colombia, a country that has been ravaged by drug wars for over 50 years, they held a referendum on the FARC peace deal which was rejected by a tiny fraction over 50% of the population, even more finely balanced than the Brexit result. The opponents wanted heads on plates, not reconciliation.

As to our Brexit one, with its simplistic question and 'advisory' result, everyone has been interpreting the result as 'meaning' whatever they wanted it to mean. We are now told that it was not about a hatred of Westminster/banker's bonuses/austerity/human rights/taking back control/fishing quotas ... but it was about migration, pure and simple. Apparently the voters have given their verdict with 'emphatic clarity' (TM).

But there are parliamentary rumblings ... as former Tory minister Stephen Dorrell succinctly put it: focussing negotiations that were about economic policy on immigration would be an 'odd' move ... To pursue a pure objective on immigration - that way lies madness.

Referenda may be the latest tool of 'democracy' but they are blunt and silly ways to make coherent, joined up policy. Just ask the Swiss.

Another week, another Turkey

The turkeys continue to vote for Christmas although we now seem to have different and very conflicting recipes on how to to cook our bird.

Over the weekend various groups who were worried about the slow progress (if any) with Brexit started to cohere demanding the idea of going for a 'Hard Brexit'. This, as far as anyone can define is to say 'let's forget about the single market and simply go it alone in the world'. I make this the microwave recipe for it assumes we simply send in the Article 50 letter as soon as possible, put two fingers to our former friends and get on with it: fast.

The fact that this group included great striding minds like John Redwood and Jacob Rees-Mogg should surely tell us all we need to know about its credibility.

If David Cameron's original intention in calling the referendum was to sort out disagreements within the Tory party then it is clear that it has not yet succeeded. There seems to be no consensus on whether we need/want/will get access to the European single market.

• On Monday we heard that Senior Tories had 'warned against hard Brexit' despite people like Boris backing the idea 
• On Tuesday Michael Howard took a typically tough line and argued for a hard break while showing his lack of understanding of existing trade relationships - and this from a former party leader
• On Thursday, Liam Fox seemed to want to have his cake and eat it. In a speech as full of optimistic visioning and as devoid of detail or rational facts as David Davis', he hinted at a hard Brexit and suggesting that we would have access to the single market with little problem. The old adage of 'they need us more than we need them ...' which stands up to about 30 seconds worth of analysis. Nick Clegg was on hand to point out the fallacy. It is so good to have a Trade Minister who really understands his brief

Also on Thursday, the big beast Ken Clarke appeared to be 'agreeing with Nick' when he said that the PM was running a government with no policies and had not a clue what she was doing with Brexit. He went on to say he was not going to change the conviction of lifetime and vote in favour of Brexit despite the referendum result. It is good to see someone saying it at last.

Liam Fox later waved away the warning from Nissan bosses that they would stop investing in their highly successful plant in Sunderland if tariffs made them uncompetitive. What an irony that it was Sunderland that was the first to declare their vote in the referendum and the poor people of that city look like being the first turkeys to discover the meaning of Christmas.

It is worth reading the full article in the Independent in which the author, James Moore, leaves us in no doubt about his view of Liam Fox or Brexit.

• [New models will] almost certainly be built in countries that haven't chosen to shoot themselves in their economic foot
• ... but Brexiteers like the odious Liam Fox, Secretary of State for International Trade ... 
• [And when the jobs go in Sunderland] ... you wonder whether Mr Fox has given any thought to what he might replace them with? More call centres?
• Will Mr Fox, a wealthy man who will be all but immune from the economic fallout of Brexit, be welcomed if he visits the affected areas after this has happened? Probably not a question worth asking. I doubt he'll have the guts.  

No doubt he, like the Express (whose link with reality was lost long ago) believe that 'we will be fine' because the economy is doing well just now.

It took a wonderful piece in Private Eye to nail the truth in a few well-chosen words:  To put it in more technical term, the shit hasn't hit the fan yet, as Theresa May tries to delay turning the fan on for as long as possible.

Turkey itself was in the news with Boris once again flip-flopping his views on the benefits of their joining the EU.

• Two years ago, in a television documentary he sat on the banks of the Bosphorus and underlined the cultural importance of Turkey joining the EU
• In May/June this year, he backed the Brexit campaign and stressed the danger of 70m Turks (overtones of 'Muslims', terrorists, Syrian refugees ...) flooding into the EU and thus into the UK (despite everyone pointing out that Turkey had a very long way to go on the process and the UK would have a veto on them joining anyway) 
• Now he wants to be very helpful in assisting Turkey to join

It must be such good news for Turkey to have the support of such a reliable partner, even if we are about to leave the very thing they are about to join. I wonder what help the UK - the least credible member of the EU - could possibly give.

Somewhere during this week, there was a Labour Party Conference but other than re-crowning Saint Jeremy, it had little connection with the reality we face and barely mentioned Brexit.

Next week we have the Tory Party conference at which we expect to hear much about domestic matters and probably very little detail from the PM about Brexit. After all, she would not want to give us a running commentary, would she?

'Dead cats' - like the proposals for grammar schools - will be thrown in our paths to distract us from asking difficult questions about her least favourite topic.

Having had a French and a German minister trying to explain the four freedoms - and the link between access to the single market and freedom of movement - to the UK in words of one syllable, rumours abound that it just may end up as a mess.

The last word of the week must go to that Euro-hero Guy Verhofstadt (who we last met being dropped from Nigel Farage's Christmas card list). Here is his 'Christmas' message to the world:

So Boris Johnson wants to help Turkey join the EU, after he just campaigned for the UK to leave the EU on the basis that Turkey would be joining the EU in the near future.

The UK Defence Minister today says the UK Government will block EU efforts to enhance its security capabilities, even though the UK is leaving the EU, yet they say they want and enhanced security relationship with the EU after Brexit.

Liam Fox, the UK Trade Minister, has indicated the UK will leave the EU's customs union, because he thinks other markets are more important, yet his Prime Minister tells us that the EU27 'will sign' an ambitious trade deal with the UK.

It is good to know that the man with whom we will be negotiating has such a high regard for our ministers.

'They haven't a clue'

Now available. Instructions are not provided

Things do not seem to be getting any clearer on where we are supposedly heading. We left the story last week with our gallant PM in New York telling others that migration was the big issue and that she had the answer. It looked mighty like Donald Trump's wall only it was full of water and labelled 'The English Channel'.

In the margins of the same event, President Obama reminded us of the pictures of bodies being washed up in the Mediterranean and invited us to show some humanity.

Donald Tusk helpfully pointed out that a large referendum result was a systemic failure by British politicians who had managed to blame Europe for their own failings over the years. This did not go down well with the government - nothing Tusk says ever will, especially if it is close to the truth.

Other European leaders and their ministers joined in and reminded us that we could not have access to the single market and avoid free movement of people. Boris Johnson naturally regarded this as complete baloney.

At a joint news conference the French Foreign Minister and Germany's Wolfgang Schaeuble responded:
If we need to do more, we will gladly send her majesty's foreign minister a copy of the Lisbon Treaty [Kind of them not to mention that this was willingly signed by HMG]. Then he can read that there is a certain link between the single market and the four core principles in Europe.

I can also say it in English. So if clarification is necessary we can pay a visit and explain this to him in good English.

The French foreign minister added:
There are four freedoms and they cannot be separated. So if we want to make good European pate then there are four freedoms that together make up the pate in question.
Ouch! Who says the Germans do not have a sense of humour?

An unnamed diplomat told the Financial Times that there are six Boris Johnsons. Boris is generally perceived as a bad joke so everybody waits to see that face he will put on this time: clown, liar, joker, manipulator, master of insult or serious responsible politician. Expectations form him are very low based on his track record so far.

We were once again reminded that there would be no running commentary on progress with Brexit. This left commentators to wonder again exactly what it meant.

Some clarity did begin to emerge as discussions are at last beginning to focus on the two key issues: trade and migration. Talk of 'taking back control', of reducing bureaucracy, of funding the NHS and other mysterious Brexit promises have faded from the scene and we are faced with a straight and simple dilemma.

But, since there is no running commentary, nor updates, we are all in the dark as to which is seen as the lesser of the two evils. Are we surprised that businessmen are eyeing Liam Fox's golf course?

It was a harsh week. On Monday, Nick Clegg pointed out that the government had not a clue - and although critics dismissed him as an unreliable has-been, he knows the main actors well and characterised the Tory mindset well. His briefing paper on the complexity of arriving an WTO trade agreement was a brilliant piece of work which showed just how complex and overlapping the process would be.

Monday was also the day that Nicola Horlick defected to the Lib Dems, taking a side swipe at Liam Fox on the way, claiming that his comments on businessmen confirmed that the Tories' reputation for economic competence was now in tatters. She also reminded people of the warning by the Japanese that it would make eminent sense for them to move investment if we left the EU.

The Lib Dems were in the news again on Tuesday when Tim Farron made his conference speech committing to an open, tolerant and united country, preferably in the EU, and actually got coverage on the mainstream media even if he was upstaged by a celebrity marriage break-up.

By Wednesday, we learned that the areas that had backed Brexit were those that had been historically starved of government support. A later and rather longer report tracked the rise of the far right in both the UK and USA and showed that it was about lack of empowerment and resentment at 'new' people which easily translated into a hatred of immigration.

Tory Alan Duncan then spiced things up by saying openly that Boris Johnson had not expected to win the referendum but was only interested in being seen as the PM heir-apparent. I guess they had a meaningful discussion in the Parliament bar afterwards.

The publication of the first of the memoirs to hit the bookshops confirmed many of the things we had expected, to the effect that Boris had been wavering until the last moment and had only sent the then PM a text nine minutes announcing that he would be running for Brexit.

In an effort to cheer us up, the Mail reassured us that the results of Project Fear had yet to emerge. Um ... have they not noticed that the pound has fallen through the floor and that we have not yet left the EU.

By Friday the topic of Hard Brexit was being mentioned and George Osborne who is clearly going to enjoy being a distraction to the government, pointed out the question paper had not said anything about Hard Brexit.

Actually, the question paper had not mentioned anything other than a straight in/out question and so it is only spin and interpretation of the polls that allows any of us to work out what the referendum answer actually was other than a vote for out (just, almost ...)

Left alone to mind the shop, Boris could not resist telling someone that Article 50 would be triggered in the early part of 2017. Even though this was a repeat of what the PM had already said, he was also slapped down, making it a trio of public hand-slaps for the three wise monkeys in as many weeks.

Oh, and Northern Ireland started looking into mounting a legal challenge against Brexit.

The weekend continued in like vein and by Monday we were being told that British diplomats were (understandably) telling European businessmen not to believe a thing coming out of the three Brexit ministers. Presumably they have worked out that the PM holds the reins and has no confidence in her three primates.

At the end of a depressingly directionless week when sense has once again been hard to find, there is this witty customer complaint to enjoy.

The madness continues ...

The Last Night of the Proms was an occasion when the competing sides in the Brexit debate sought to hijack things to suit their different agendas. Remainers planned a mass-waving of EU flags but were stymied by the Brexiteers who tried to swamp these with UK flags. As it was, the result was the usual collection of flags of many nations.

The NewsThump satirical website reminded us all that waving the flag was tantamount to treason and outlined the punishment likely to be meted out to perpetrators.

This did not stop the social media trolls. One charming posting gave a satisfying reminder of the importance of proof-reading.

On Monday, the Sun ran a piece suggesting that the EU would charge UK citizens for visas to visit Europe. This, the Sun suggested, was a piece of spite by the EU.

... charging ordinary Brits to visit the Continent when countries such as Germany and France have had wide-open borders for decades is simply absurd. 

It is no surprise spiteful Brussels wants to punish us for Brexit.

How does one even begin to argue with this sort of logic? Germany and France have open borders because they are both in the EU and because their (democratically elected) governments have agreed not to have visas. Oh bother! I have used some long words. Let me start again ...

Poor Justine Greening then announced what we had been told last week: that grammar schools were back on the agenda.

Two extra points emerged: that the cap on the proportion of children of specific faiths admitted to 'faith' schools was to be lifted from 50%. It is hard to see how this proposal goes any way towards broadening the social mix in such schools, nor why the government sees fit to include it. Where is the political pressure for this coming from?

The second observation was that the Green Paper on grammar schools cuts right across the proposals in the awaited White Paper on academies, demonstrating how incoherent the government 'strategy' for education actually is.  

Elsewhere, David Davis told us again that there would be no second referendum and that parliament would not be given a say on any part of the Brexit process, not at the beginning, not during, nor when it was completed. It did not take people long to recognise that the Brexit manifesto objective of 'taking back sovereignty to the UK parliament' was to be another broken promise.

By 'UK Parliament' it did not mean the 'UK Parliament' but a closed-shop of utterly reliable Ministers, working in deadly secrecy to avoid 'our negotiating position' to leak out.

On Wednesday we had an announcement of the proposed parliamentary constituency boundary changes which, surprise, surprise, lead to a predicted increase in the number of Tory seats by 40. Gerrymandering was coined to describe just such adjustments.

Fun stuff this democracy. It is just as well that the Human Rights Act is to be replaced by ... oh yes, Liz Truss has not worked out what with (or why), has she ...

As the week got into its stride, we were told that the Hinckley Point deal had been agreed. So we have 'taken back control' to hand it over to the French and Chinese governments.

Much as I love China and its people as a country, it is hard to think of a major regime whose human rights record is dire as that of China except, perhaps Saudi Arabia and we would not want to do business with them would we ... Oh, you mean all those arms sales? Well, those are different because ... Brexit is taking us in some dubiously moral directions.

And less we should sound a little sanctimonious, the parliamentary report on Libya laid the responsibility for the chaos in that country on the personal lap of David Cameron. He caused the political chaos, it said, and he is responsible for the wave of refugees crossing the Mediterranean and ... yes, landing up on the doorsteps of Italy, France and the UK.

Talk about kicking a man when he is down. Did foreknowledge of this report encourage him to resign to avoid being a distraction to the PM: to avoid sitting on the backbenches sulking as Ted Heath did after being ousted?

Tellingly, the report said that Cameron had started the bombing campaign without a clear strategy for the aftermath. So both the Chilcott report and this one have said the same thing. Will we make the same mistake with Brexit?

From vacuum to golf course

David Davis' speech summarised by the
Have I Got News for You Facebook page

Last week was not the new government's greatest week.

On Monday, Brexit Minister David Davis opened the batting with a statement to Parliament about 'progress' with his work which said absolutely nothing that we did not already know: that there was no plan and no clear direction. Out for a duck?

The PM, fresh from her tough time being left out at the G20 discussions and no doubt reeling from Japan's dire and unusually direct warnings about investment, confirmed that she did not feel committed to the Brexit commitments on Immigration or the NHS which were two of the main planks for the Manifesto of Lies. She has already rejected the Australian points-based system for immigration. (It is strange how newly promoted people prefer to carry on doing their old job, undermining the newly-appointed replacements.)

On Tuesday, a cameraman's long lens spotted a document about the expansion of grammar schools, a policy which had been resisted by the Cameron regime. Caught at slip off a thick edge?

By Wednesday, No 10 was publicly slapping Davis down - sorry, saying that 'he was expressing a personal opinion' - for some of his remarks while the PM confirmed that grammar schools were back on the agenda. The timing was interesting as it took the focus off Brexit.

The education industry and others predictably weighed in with thousands of reasons why grammar schools were the wrong answer and this guaranteed that the weekend news agenda would be about education and not about Davis' incompetence.

Wednesday was also the day when new Minister Liz Truss appeared before the House of Commons Justice Committee to announce ... and showed that she has not yet got her head around her agenda or brief.  Prison Reform is now dead in the water. So that is Grayling, Gove and now Truss, all with different ideas and we are no further forward.

On Thursday, Donald Tusk appeared to have breakfast at No 10 and to press for an early lodging of Article 50, saying the ball was in the UK's court. This gave the headline writers a field day ranging from reference to 'balls' to questioning whether Breakfast meant Breakfast.

Friday resulted in a couple of quick wickets. The PM did her 'big speech' about the sort of society she wanted to create which included her commitment to grammar schools. Was this a late, and rather over-specific, insertion following the leak?

Liam Fox then surrendered his wicket very cheaply by saying that Britain is 'too lazy and too fat' with businessmen (sic) preferring 'golf on a Friday afternoon' to trying to boost the country's prosperity.

The balloon went up with respected notable entrepreneurs like Richard Reed of Innocent Drinks saying 'He is a representative of us, of this country, and he turns round and slags us off, calling us fat and lazy. He's talking about business people who were absolutely clear in saying that we want to export - and that's why we do want to remain in the EU... 

'How dare he talk down the country that he damaged, how dare he? He's a terrible, terrible voice for British business.'

Even the normally supportive Telegraph was moved to hint that businessmen might be playing rounds of golf while they waited to see what wonderful new trading arrangements Mr Fox had arranged.

So that was pretty much all out for nil. Mind you, with the Labour Party engaged in its self-destructive election, the bowling was hardly threatening.